As part of the development of PhilPapers, we have created a system of editorial positions. We aim to assign editors to all categories at the area level and below. Editors will be given powerful tools to help us populate and maintain the categories. Full details of the editorial system are available in the editor's manual.

We are now calling for applications for these positions. You can apply to become editor of a category by following the relevant link at the top of the category's page (you can reach pages for the major areas from the main category page, and all the pages for subcategories from there). The main qualification for editorship is one or more publications on the relevant topic, though we may relax that requirement for editorships for leaf categories, and the requirement may be higher for area editors.

We strongly encourage qualified philosophers to apply, whether for an entire area, a middle-level category, or for one or more leaf categories. You will be making a real contribution to a resource that is already very widely used. The application process for the initial round of editorships begins now, with a deadline of April 30.

Dear David - I have just attempted to volunteer to edit the OBJECTS entry, not including sub-categories, but was unable to get the page to submit my application. And by the way, I had {only just} registered, signed in and validated my email address. Rather than sending in an error report, I decided to copy my application and contact you in this manner. Below is a copy of what I attempted to submit.

It seems to me that as it stands, this category lacks a top-level rationale. Such a rationale does I think exist - one form occurs in B.R's Principles of Mathematics - and I've an entry in the SEP on the matter, currently being updated. I am not entirely certain as to how one might proceed on this, but I'll submit this note anyway.

Guess I spoke too soon. Hadn't thought there was so much wiggle room in modern philosophical nomenclature and boy am I "el stupido". I knew I didn't think like normals, but this really astounded me. I redid the Philosophy of Law Category for the hell of it by my own druthers and it was, if necessarily rough-hewn, sufficiently different that I have to presume my capacity to fit a given article into this system is not what you require. In fact, you probably don't care to know what I think of the system in the overall so I'll shut up. You have my email if you want my input on any of this.

Notwithstanding my inaptness re indexicality in the land of philosophy, this site is fantabulastic. I have already secured some wonderful material using the keyword-search method. So best of luck to everyone, especially you two David's. Great work and best wishes.

Btw, a previous commentor who referenced B.R. might (well, I certainly am) have been referring to his distinction of mathematical philosophy versus philosophy of mathematics (of course he chose the former). So, e.g., compare and contrast as follows: Philosophy of Law : Legal Philosophy : : Epistemology of Metaphilosophy : Metaphilosophical Views (i.e., philosophical philosophy). I take it that Philosophy of History is defunct as of Hegel?

We philosophers are often (justly) accused of trampling over other specialists' territories. Seems to this writer that we are as Rorty once described himself to me -- "poetasters". I liken our tribe to the lawyers, who require to know enough of their clients' wherewithal to defend their rights. I don't have to be an expert in law to remark on the jural versus juridical metaphysic of standing. By the same token I am not about to give the impression to my lawyer friends that I can better discuss contract law or criminal jurisdiction than they. Ergo my conception of Philosophy of Law reflects what we do as opposed to leaving to them what they do. I just don't believe in the big head and tall ego stuff. We need to respect others. I myself go so far as to presume that "fill-in-the-blank-al philosophy" is what we expect of folks with Ph.D.s or J.D.s in their respective fill-in-the-blanc disciplines. Thus legal philosophy is what we expect a professor of law to do when s/he brings an understanding of philosophy to bear on their bailiwick. Mathematical philosophy is what we expect a mathematician to do when applying precepts of ours to her area of expertise (which has always made me suspicious of B.R.). Which is why I, for example, deal with my own material under the 'philosophy of mathematics' rubric, wherein it usually will tend to be the sort of number theory dabbled in by folks like Descartes, Leibniz, and their fellow Rosicrucians. Life is so much safer that way. Or so it seems to me. Again, cheers and congrats on a great site.

I am definitely interested in applying to be an editor for PhilPapers, but I am concerned that I might not meet the requirements "loosened" requirements, and just wanted to seek some clarification of those requirements before I waste my time, and the reviewers, applying. What's the best way to go about this? I've included my contact info below, should someone want to e-mail me privately, or I can follow whatever instructions are left in responses here. Thanks!